Male MP Having Sex With Female Iraq Prisoner

Testimony just disclosed there is a pricture. How will this go over in the arab world?

esp for the woman...she`ll probaly will want to kill herself rather than dishonor her family..

Then sue the shit out of the military.

It's the family honor thing.

That's just what we need.

. . . I confess my naivete. I thought that sort of thing happened. Are you saying that is doesn't? :shrug:

TYY

He just says it is stereotyping to assume it would happen in this case. A stereotype is rarely fictitious. It is typically an observed behavior in a segment of a population incorrectly applied to every member of that population and typically done so in an insulting manner as motivated by bigotry.

Honor killings are not uncommon in the arab world. That said, they're far from universal either; Jordan, for instance, which has maybe the biggest problem with them, has maybe 20 honor killings a year. Which is not to minimize the size of the problem, but to say it's definitely stereotyping to suggest that it'll happen to any 'dishonored' arab woman. The killings are also associated with particular, ancient cultures, notably Bedouins; it would be a mistake to blame them directly on Islam, as is often done.

There was a "60 Minutes" segment a few years ago documenting Jordanian efforts to change this practice which seems to exist in some of the poorer communities.

Try these sources:

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/honor18_20031118.htm

Killing family member to save honor on the rise

BY SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON
FREE PRESS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT

November 18, 2003


ABU QASH, West Bank -- Rofayda Qaoud -- raped and impregnated by her brothers -- refused to commit suicide, her mother recalls, even after she bought the teenager a razor with which to slit her wrists. So Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud says she did what any good Palestinian parent would: restored her family's honor through murder.

Armed with a plastic bag, razor and wooden stick, Qaoud entered her sleeping daughter's room Jan. 27. "Tonight you die, Rofayda," she told the girl, before wrapping the bag tightly around her head. Next, Qaoud sliced Rofayda's wrists, ignoring her muffled pleas of "No, mother, no!" After her daughter went limp, Qaoud struck her in the head with the stick.

Killing her sixth-born child took 20 minutes, Qaoud told a visitor through a stream of tears and cigarettes that she smoked in rapid succession. "She killed me before I killed her," said the 43-year-old mother of nine. "I had to protect my children. This is the only way I could protect my family's honor."

Two of her sons are in a West Bank jail, serving minimum 10-year sentences for statutory rape.

more...


http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillings.html

These killings, which occur with shocking regularity in certain parts of the Middle East and South Asia, target women whose actions – actual or suspected – violate the honor of their family, an honor which is thought to depend on the sexual purity of its female members. Anything from speaking with an unrelated man, to rumored pre-marital loss of virginity, to an extra-marital affair can be cause for an attack, often carried out by a father or brother. In some especially tragic instances, even women and girls who have been raped are slain to remove the stain from the family honor. As with other forms of intimate violence against women, perpetrators are seldom punished.

more...


http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/dilberk.htm

In Turkey, 'Honor Killing' Follows Families to Cities
Women Are Victims Of Village Tradition

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, August 8, 2001; Page A01


ISTANBUL -- By Sait Kina's way of thinking, his 13-year-old daughter brought nothing but dishonor to his family: She talked to boys on the street, she ran away from home, she was the subject of neighborhood gossip.

Two months ago, when she tried to run away yet again, Kina grabbed a kitchen knife and an ax and stabbed and beat the girl until she lay dead in the blood-smeared bathroom of the family's Istanbul apartment.

He then commanded one of his daughters-in-law to clean up the mess. When his two sons came home from work 14 hours later, he ordered them to dispose of the 5-foot-3 corpse, which had been wrapped in a carpet and a blanket. The girl's head had been so mutilated, police said, it was held together by a knotted cloth.

"I fulfilled my duty," Kina told police after he was arrested, according to investigators' reports presented in the court case against the father and his two sons. "We killed her for going out with boys."

more...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"the Jews" or "the Blacks" or "the Arabs".

Lord, do I ever loathe the intellecutally lazy and wholly counterproductive practice of lumping groups together.

Except republicans. ;)

Don't lump me in with "The" Americans. "An" American, yes, but there is no national consensus on the American identity right now.

stereotype.

... I think at least on the surface, they're anti-

By definition

any prison guard in a position of authority like ath would nnever in my mind be considered to be having consentual sex with a prisoner even if she wasn't screaming "NO!"

the fact that there were photos of the incident seem to imply that there was a photographer present unless he used a tripod. The evidence suggests that this was definely not an act of mutual love or attraction no matter how you slice it.

I agree this is probably rape. And I agree the photo implies such.

However, I disagree that a prisoner would never want to have sex with a guard. Why could there not be a mutual attraction? And then there is the notion of having sex to feel comforted, something for which a prisoner might certainly be looking.

From the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

BTW, according to Stop Prisoner Rape, "It's a felony for a guard to have sexual relations with an inmate even if it's consensual." That's referring to American civilian prisons. Surely the military also has regulations in place that stipulate it's never OK for a guard or interrogator to have sex, whether consensual or not, with an inmate or POW or detainee, or whatever it is these people are currently being called.

I was arguing against the statement that this sex can not be consensual. You are saying the guard should not have sex with a prisoner even if it is consensual. You even say it is illegal.

I happen to agree with that it should not. Mostly to protect the woman from unwanted sexual advances. But also to prevent subversion of the guard**.

As a supporting statement you pull up a code from the Geneva Convention saying women should be treated with respect. A few women's brothers/sons/nephews have accused me of disrespecting their sisters/mothers/aunts. But the women have never made that accusation. See post #61 for my somewhat snide response to this line of thought.


**I have spent this discusion in the weird (for me) position of defending a woman's right to her sexuality. At least subversion of the guard is something I can speak about from a more personal perspective. For most men sex is a pretty good tool for subversion.

" For most men sex is a pretty good tool for subversion."

In most war-torn areas, it is the first tool of choice against women and girls.

http://condor.depaul.edu/~rrotenbe/aeer/aeer13_1/Olujic.html

Rape has been used as a tactic of terror in many wars (Brownmiller 1975, Bergman 1974). Rape was a weapon of terror as the German Hun marched through Belgium in World War I; gang rape was part of the orchestrated riots of Kristallnacht which marked the beginning of Nazi campaigns against the Jews. It was a weapon of revenge as the Russian Army marched to Berlin in World War II, it was used when the Japanese raped Chinese women in the city of Nanking, when the Pakistani Army battled Bangladesh, and when the American G. I.'s made rape in Vietnam a "standard operating procedure aimed at terrorizing the population into submission" (Bergman 1974: 69). But in these wars, rape did not receive the widespread publicity it has in the on-going war in former Yugoslavia.

The situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia provides a broader socio-cultural context of conflict between different groups of men. Acts of rape in this context not only attack women, they also humiliate the husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons of the victims because the demonstrate the men's inability to protect their women. This humiliation is especially intense in the Balkans where the honor/shame complex is so strong and female chastity is central to family and community honor (Schneider 1971, Davis 1977).

...more

I meant it can be a tool for subverting the MAN (the occupier in this instance).

I said it before but I feel compelled to say it again, I've never read more disgustingly ugly drivel in my life. Spare us.

or did he just veer into "eve" syndrome... is he suggesting that the woman prisoner is using sex to subvert the perverts who are engaged in all of the torture and abuse and photographing it and passing it around to boot?

I MUST be misunderstanding that statement. Mustn't I?

masturbatory fantasies trying to be passed off as arguments.

I think that in addition to electing Kerry and immediately holding his feet to the fire, that liberal women must immediately start putting these gender issues FRONT AND CENTER. Future generations deserve no less.

I took my own statement out of context because someone was actually supporting me ... but only because he had misread my statement. I figured I owed it to him to correct his misreading before he got flamed.

who is using sex to subvert the guards? Why don't you clarify - because it sounds pretty awful given the circumstances - perhaps how it reads is not how you intended it to read?

From my earlier post:

I was arguing against the statement that this sex can not be consensual. You are saying the guard should not have sex with a prisoner even if it is consensual. You even say it is illegal.

I happen to agree that it should not. Mostly to protect the woman from unwanted sexual advances. But also to prevent subversion of the guard**.

**For most men sex is a pretty good tool for subversion.


SemperEadem misread my footnote to mean that men use rape as a tool for subverting conquered peoples when I was referring to men being subverted by women in the context of giving a reason why I believe guards should not be allowed to have sex with inmates (obviously in a male guard/female inmate context to be more specific).

I think this can and does happen (just can't see it under any circumstances in the current case being discussed)... am curious if you were to put odds to it... per all guard/prisoner sexual encounters what would you put the ratio of coercive by guard/ vs. subversive by inmate? 50/50? 20/80? 80/20? Just curious.

Yeah, I know that adds up to 101%. That's because I really don't have any idea. Also, you're leaving out the third option: innocent attraction.

Wild arsed guess I will put the coersion/subversion/attraction ratio at 95/2/3.

for god knows what, by people i probably think have no business whatsoever in my country...
gee, i think i'll have sex with my prison guard...because of an 'innocent attraction' i have to people who kill, imprison, and torture my people.
yeah...that's the ticket :eyes:

salin asked me to give an estimate based on the prison situation at home, not Iraq.

But for the record, yes, I do believe it is even possible for an Iraqi inmate to want to have sex with a guard. For the Stockholm Syndrome and all that if nothing else.

I can, in fact, believe just about anything is possible when it comes to what people can feel and think. A man in Germany answered an ad to willingly be a cannibal's victim not so long ago.

so don't get pissy with me for understand your meaning perfectly. sure...anything is possible, especially when you're imprisoned. and i know that people are capable of anything....especially when they are deprived of their basic, human rights.
i still don't think you understand that being forced to have sex is called rape. what choice do you think this woman had in the matter? even if she is suffering from stockholm syndrome...even that is a situation that was FORCED on her. she doesn't have a choice, so it cannot be something she desires.
that scenario exists only in the minds of pornographers.

A man in Germany answered an ad to willingly be a cannibal's victim not so long ago.

There was also evidence presented at the trial and other testimony that the victim, hereafter referred to as "dinner", suffered from severe depression and other mental disorders. That would bolster MY arguments..not yours.

I asked a leading question... about domestic situations - just trying to get at whether we were dealing with a view that saw rape vs consensual sex as a evenly distributed deal (have seen that here)... or a rape predominantly and consensual (or manipulative) pretty rare - but just likes arguing for arguing's sake. Hence my question putting him on the spot.

this poster has been talking out of both sides of his/her mouth in just about every post in this thread.

subversion might be a tiny bit higher than mutual attraction (as it is a form of 'self preservation) from some inmates perspective. Granted in a war situation... I would put it at 100% coersion while in the penal system. I know, we differ on that. It is good to see, however, that what you are arguing for (in terms of position) you recognize as a very small fraction of the overall situation. Probably should have asked you that earlier.

which seems much more likely in this highly charged (and abusive) atmosphere... the old... they fell in love and were attracted... scenario - while potentially possible... is much less likely than the coersion scenario given what we currently know. Wonder why when we have to fall to assumptions around rape - so many people want to give the men the benefit of the doubt - at a much higher rate than many other charges.

But I disagree with the blanket statement that a prisoner can not desire sex with a guard. I can not even imagine what would make a person think such a thing.

Or worse yet, is it because the prisoner is female? Are some posters betraying a parochial attitude towards a woman's sexual desires (or, more to the point, lack thereof).

because she's not in an open and free environment where basic human things like desire can be fairly evaluated. He is in a position of total power of her and the circumstances are such that the ideas about desire, attraction, consent, etc. that you are describing simply do not apply. From the psychological/emotional perspective, it is a whole new playing field.

This is why sexual relations between between of unequal power (teacher/student, guard/prisoner) are not allowed, or at least heavily frowned upon. She may not be yelling no, but that maybe be because she has no choice but to say yes.

She does not have the power to consent, and that's why it is, by definition, rape.

The original statement with which I disagreed on this sub-thread was "would never in my mind be considered to be having consenual sex". You make a very good argument for it to be "considered" non-consensual sex. And I do, in fact, agree that it should not be permitted.

I do not, however, agree that it always "is" non-consensual sex.

Even if she thinks she really wants it and is consenting to it, she isn't.

Ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome?

Could it possibly happen that somewhere, a female prisoner is so incredibly strong and mentally/emotionally together that she can completely resist the psychological impact of being imprisoned, possibly threatened and abused, possibly watching members of her community threatened and abused, to the point where she is in a healthy enough mental state that she can develop an honest and sincere emotional attachment to one of her captors....who is also, of course, completely free of any sort of emotional/psychological baggage that might develop as a result of being a prison guard in a war zone?

Yes, it could happen - I suppose anything is possible - but the only place this sort of thing is even remotely possible is your local cinema. For 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all cases, this is, by definition, because of the power relations involved, rape.

Even out here in the wild it tends to get pretty confusing.

on the guard's part. not to mention common sense.

But if an inmate "thinks" he wants to have sex with a guard, and if there was no application of duress with the intent of producing those feelings in the inmate, is it rape if the guard goes along with the inmates desires?

Does that make the guard a moron? Sure. Should there be rules against it? Absolutely. Should the guard be fired for disobeying those rules? You bet.

and tell me...how could there NOT BE duress? perhaps you need to spend some time in prison to figure this out.

You said: "how could there NOT BE duress".

I said: "duress with the intent of producing those feelings".

something you still fail to grasp. perhaps if you can picture yourself in this woman's place...you might get it.

Just not coming from a healthy place.

I think a somewhat good analogy would be women who are drugged and then raped. They may be all over someone, but they are not in the proper mental state to be making those sorts of decisions, usually waking up the next morning wondering what the hell happened and why am I in bed with this stranger. Someone who's had a roofie slipped into her drink is likely to come across as just pretty drunk, having a good time, etc., but even though she might say yes, the more important factor is her inability to say no. That's what makes it rape. She might've said yes without the roofie, true, but that's irrelevant. Think of imprisonment as the mental/emotional equivalent of a roofie.

So again, it's not that her feelings aren't valid, just that she is not in the proper frame of mind to be evaluating/acting on those feelings. I would add that even if a female prisoner is all over her guard and even if he perceives her to be sincere in her desires, he still has an ethical if not legal obligation to turn her down. He is the one in power and it is therefore his responsibility.

first, remember that there is an issue of POWER in a guard/prisoner scenario. If you doubt this - google the Stanfor Prisoner Experiment as to how the dynamics can effect even normal folks... Thus the power differential makes it almost impossible to have truely consensual sex... in the sense that the woman doesn't have the option to affiliate (hang out with) or not with the male guards in the prison... the female prisoner does not have access to turn away said guard who might "take a liking to her..."

I am sure that in the US prison system that there are cases of women prisoners turning the dynamic around to get favors and things done by using sex. Would also guess that the cases of male guard/female prisoner incidents of sex - that it is more likely coerced (he can threaten anything from bad reports that result in longer incarceration... to denying access to family visits... to simply forcing himself knowing (in some circumstances) that no one will come to her aid and no one will believe her over him... she is a convicted prisoner afterall... That said - I am certain that both scenarios occur.

However the power differential is MUCH higher in the prison situation in Iraq. The toxic rage and arrogance and abashed cruelty and domination cycle present makes it impossible to concieve of the scenario you describe.

Again, I think you give good reasons why it can not be allowed. Even why a guard should not act upon any "offer" he or she may receive.

I disagree that the situation in Iraq "makes it impossible" for sex to happen simply because both parties want to have sex. I don't think the desire to have sex is exactly uncommon. But I will concede "highly unlikely" in the circumstances.

in my mind, it is unconceivable.

That is not to say that a guard wouldn't meet an Iraqi woman on the OUTSIDE of the prison circumstance and become involved in a sexual relationship. That, I would agree, would not be surprising for the reasons that you suggest.

But under the current circumstances - especially the environment of degradation, fear and constant coercement (read the International Red Cross report per coercement by threatening to bring family members in to "hang along side" while a prisoner is hung by his wrists... threats to go after the family... page after page of threats... thus inmates are in fear... fear for selves, and fear for loved ones...) the "natural sexual feelings and attractions" - probably mostly subsumed by the more natural instincts for survival (think of Maslow's levels of basic human needs).

Still reading an undercurrent of the "seductress" scenario behind these words. Probably due to not yet reading an indication of grasping the degree of an environment of degredation, threats, intimidation which are pervasive in the context that we are speaking about. Can you at least understand - without the silly assumption that my raising this must mean that I think that women don't enjoy sex - why I would suggest that it would be impossible - or at least next to impossible for your scenario to arise within this prison... and the prisonor/guard scenario?

Not to mention that the pics were being swapped among the men.. treated as prized possessions - flowing on websites between the prison and a camp/base in Maryland... all suggesting that these antics were about power, humiliation, "winning" over the vulnerable... THAT is the indication of the mindset of the guards. THAT is what is coloring this conversation. I don't see this as a scenario as a prisoner deciding the guard was cute... and inviting sex.. and then being betrayed by him because he took pictures.

Which again reinforces the whole scenario... if this were consensual - why are the pictures included with all of the torture and abuse pictures? Wouldn't they be of a different nature/category? So the rapist and/or his buddies viewed it as part of the hahaha torture and abuse pics... doesn't that give indication of the whole mindset ... think that these dudes participating in this way.. photographing , humiliating and abusing prisoners... would suddenly be found so adorable and attactive that one would seek "comfort" from one of the guards doing the abusing of other prisoners?

makes no sense what so ever.

I don't deny the report. But I don't know if the supposed rape** occurred in the same location as those documented. If so, it does become increasingly difficult to conceive.

But in a world where a man in Germany not too long ago willingly submitted himself to be eaten by a cannibal ... I find nothing inconceivable. Doubly so where sex is concerned. But maybe you just haven't met some of the freaks I have over the years.


Do you realize use of the words "supposed rape" would end my disagreement with everyone on this board?

it is like the rightwing use of "so called" before all things liberal. That tag of supposed would read like one was sneering it ala the knuckledraggers who sneer... "I know its not politically correct..." before saying some really offensive thing about one minority group or another.

All of the pictures in the prison (including the women's cells) show open cells and much of the abuse it appears and is written - occurs in the open areas so that those in cells can see (that is part of the humiliation). So unless the woman had been put in solitary confinement (where they didn't allow prisoners access to the bathroom so there are reports of prisoners messing on themselves)... she was exposed to the pattern of behaviors... and I don't think a long stint in solitary would make her MORE predisposed to having sexual feelings and seeking comfort of a sexual nature from the abusive guards.

You say it is "unconceivable".

I say it is "highly unlikely".


Obviously one of us has to go. Pistols at dawn? But you'll have to let the ones who say it is "impossible" have a first shot at me.

was to your question with the asterisks (would you be getting less grief with the word "supposed" in front of the word rape). The second clause stands alone.

I have tried - and under the circumstances as we know it (I write a post somewhere laying out what all we DO know about the context) that makes it inconceiveable to me that there could be any noncoerced sex between a female prisoner and a male guard at this prison.

In this context - this story - I do find it impossible/inconceivable. I do have a tiny, tiny bit of give in some other non war related circumstances - but would always need to know the context before presuming the "subversion", or even "consensual" tag.

Disgusting!

:puke:

Or you don't believe it is possible for an inmate to desire sex with a guard?

since that DESIRE is mediated by a whole host of psychological pressures.
You've been watching too much porn.

this isn't a porn tape shot in the San Fernando Valley, for God's sake!

i don't know...call me strange...but if i were a PRISONER, the last place i'd look for "comfort" is with someone who is imprisoning me :eyes:

if you are providing custodial care for someone, you should have the good sense to know you can't act on the attraction. how on earth can there be a 'mutual attraction' when you are a prisoner?

any prison guard in a position of authority like that would never in my mind be considered to be having consentual sex with a prisoner even if she wasn't screaming "NO!"

the fact that there were photos of the incident seem to imply that there was a photographer present unless he used a tripod. The evidence suggests that this was definitely not an act of mutual love or attraction no matter how you slice it.

would call it frat hazing. Just letting off steam.

Why the friggin' daintiness? Are they afraid of getting censured by the FCC? :eyes:

Just blowing off steam, right?

In General, Male members of a family are seldom prosecuted for killing a female family member who has had sex outside of marriage. I don't think there is an exception from rape.

"having sex" with? :grr: Let me guess...the repubs are justifying rape now, as well? Why not...considering they are justifying torture.

Rush will refer to this as a "petting party" like he did torture as a "frat hazing."

:-)

Seeing as how they are still in operation under new management.

:shrug:

showing group rape of several different Iraqi women. One was on her knees with the barrel of a gun to her head. Were those the photos that are being called fakes?

I was wondering the same thing. That batch of pictures were the most sickening yet to be seen. They sure didn't look fake to me and I doubt if they are fake.

but there was a group of pictures that NPR was saying had been identified as fakes - perhaps staged photos taken somewhere else.

I'm sure that rapes of the kind depicted in the photos are taking place. I just don't want to use a staged or photoshopped picture as evidence.

Whether real rapes or commercial porn, I don't know for sure. But my gut said real.

out. Let's not reach and taint our credibility.

verification that they are fake. Who says ?

From a cheap S&M porn film with a Desert Storm theme. Charming stuff, eh? But there were a number of very obvious tip-offs that even a casual observer would have noticed that debunk their authenticity. The first one I noticed was the "soldiers'" uniforms. They were wearing jungle camo. In the desert. Nobody goes into a desert combat theater wearing dark green camo... might as well be wearing a safety orange jumpsuit with a target painted on it.

Here's a link:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=82983#27

EDITING TO WARN YOU THAT THE SITE LINKED ABOVE IS NOT "WORK FRIENDLY." Click at your own risk.

Do you remember about a year ago when soldiers were complaining that there wasn't enough desert camo to go around so they had to go in with green fatigues? I do.

Link

We find out that 30,000 of our troops lack body armor. They have been issued flak vests from the Vietnam era. It will not stop an AK-47 bullet. It would cost $15 million to equip those troops with vests, but the Pentagon, which got $79 billion last spring to equip the troops in the war and had a budget of nearly $400 billion last year, said it could not find within that budget, $15 million to give our young men and women those vests. So now, in order to equip those young men and women with the vests they should have had before they went there, they are asking for $300 million. What is this? Yes, $15 million worth of vests are needed, and the Pentagon said they want a $300 million appropriation to do that.

But it does not stop there. Some of our troops are over there in their jungle fatigues. Many of them are driving Humvees that have either canvas side curtains or sheet metal doors, which do not do real well with AK-47 bullets or rocket-propelled grenades. Now, they finally came to the conclusion that we should buy some armored Humvees for those troops.

http://defazio.house.gov/100803DEStatement2.shtml

http://www.sexinwar.com

And no, I didn't know about it until someone else here posted it.

Plus some of them are wearing camo makeup in the desert!

Also someone pointed out that the black boots don't fit either - they'd be wearing desert boots.

THIS IS RAPE

W should be fined by the FCC for menitoning that (over and over) during the "family hour" by the way. I guess W reinstituted these "rape rooms"--GREAT! just freakin' GREAT!

which will be further downgraded to the "petting party" rooms by the likes of Rush and Sean...

Who is watching?

Are these members of Congress really this naive?

They are too damn busy polishing their images for the campaign trail.. Too damn busy to spend time investigating the issues.

From speech on eve of invasion:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

" Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

I'm sure that we'll learn that they were secretly married.
Maybe posthumosly.

and we should make it known

it's not like the MP was having consensual oral sex with an intern or anything.

That would be an outrage.

This was probably more like puppy love, or maybe a frat boy making out with his sweetheart.

You liberals hate Murka and will twist anything to try to bring it down.

</sarcasm>

is generally considered to be sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment is not generally as bad as rape (like the rape being discussed in this thread). But it is still a bad, anti-feminist thing.

There can be no consensuality in this case--it is rape.

there is an imbalance of power which inherently calls into question the woman's reasoning - even if she did "consent" - it could be because she fears RETALIATION from her jailer.

The fact that you have to ask why sickens me.

So we're even.

According to you, and a number of other posters, a female prisoner could never be having sex with a guard because she wants comforting -- a prisoner looking to be comforted? -- or because she is just plain horny.

Or do you believe that women don't get aroused? They only fake it to get a ring on their finger?

Or worse yet, do you believe that women can get aroused, but only after a suitable courtship? And if so, how do you explain male strippers?


All that being said, if I felt there was a chance in heck of our finding out the truth, I would bet this was a case of rape. Instead, I'll bet we never find out with any surety.

I am freaking SPEECHLESS. :puke: You absolutely DO NOT GET IT.

the flip side of the scenario is that the soldier involved... knowing that this was taboo behavior.. was so drawn in to her feminine neediness that he couldn't help but comply to give comfort... no power/domination/etc involved.

hey - bet that is what happened in Bosnia... tell Slobo he might like to know he can get off the hook for all the mass rapes of Muslim Croatian women.. it wasn't rape in a charged atmosphere... it was the women... seeking comfort...

why is "comfort" more likely than power. Not a real spate of stories of empathetic human exchanges between the guards and the prisoners where friendships and even amorous relations blossom... but a whole lot of domination, humilation, master by fear, etc. behavior.

What you describe can happen - but isn't likely in the current circumstances. Pushing it really reads more like the gazillion excuses for rape that we have been subjected to throughout the eons.

YOU get it.

once upon a time... i really did "get it" - and there wasn't any comfort seeking involved - a bit of terror - yes - and I wasn't even a prisoner in a highly charged atmosphere tinged with rage, fear, and heady arrogant power that has been described as the prevalent atmosphere in the currently charged situation.

nt

The fact that you would post this as a possibility sickens me.

:puke:

because the selfish bitch wanted comfort..now a perfectly good military career has been ruined.

I'm speechless.

you know it's coming

sorta kinda makes me think of the lack of awareness (or arrogance on steroids) that allows folks to take pictures of themselves doing heinous things - due to an utter lack of social awareness of how WRONG it is or sounds.

Yes women do, at times, initiate sex. Sometimes they don't initiate but are willing participants... but in this power laden situation - very unlikely... to claim so is... well... outa touch to what rape means (sadly quite reflexive in these times)... but to claim indignation when called on the lack of reality of the circumstances to fit that description... wow!

My "how date you" tone is in direct response to the above remark by Skittles. Why should it be a surprise that I respond in kind?

See, in fact, the ALL CAPS and swearing subject below in response to an ALL CAPS and swearing subject. I wrote that even before I read this post of yours.

that is what salin referred to

But I don't think that is what salin referred to. I think salin was talking about my reply that you sicken me, and, even more so, to my vitriolic defense of women's sexuality.

And, frankly, I do believe a parochial view of women's sexuality play a roll in this discussion. I bet people would not be so insistent that this is rape if the genders were reversed.

FYI: I am going to have to run away from all of you soon. In part because it appears we ARE wasting our times on each other. And also because I should probably do some work before I go home.

know where have you defended women's sexuality - in my mind you keep degrading it. Making arguments that sound more like the cheap whore defense for rapists. That is the flip side to the rhetoric you use.

You keep making a warped assumption that those who are arguing against you do some from some sort of victorian space ... and to those of us who are women it is a variation of the argument the old "you must be frigid..." meant to demean women who defend other women.

These arguments that I make have nothing to do with my view of feminity, with my veiw of sexuality or with my personal sexuality. I can not believe you keep going there ... what a crock!

Let's try this again.

Your argument reads like the old "she wanted it" defense against rapists. Your "how dare you" when some reacted to your statements with venom because of the undertones of the "she was a cheap whore" sentiments just bubbling below - was what I reacted to...

Let me explain.. that you couldn't understand that some construe your argument to be the same argument that keeps most rape victims silent... and rather than getting what the reaction was about... blasting the response as being somehow from frigid victorian women (vieled personal attack)... that lack of awareness of how your argument was being read by others... and the somehow desire to push the blame/explanation on the women... as an easier explanation than rape - even when rape is written all over the context (ya lots of women who are witnessing violence... witnessing degradation at the hands of guards... witnessing the photographing the laughing the cruelty of it all... are going to get turned on and seek comfort at the hands of one of the dudes participating in the abuse and who will call over a buddy to take pictures to pass around as trophies afterwords... yep... sounds likely that women would frequently seek comfort from these folks they witness and suffer abuse from...)

The above was written before the duress arguments, etc.

One of the early comments -- which is the one that set me off, but not the one to which I responded which is probably where I made my mistake -- was something sarcastic about the guard bringing her flower and candy. To me the tone of some of these messages implied that a woman would not have sex because she just plain felt like it.

And you know perfectly well that a lot of people think that way, including many women.

It probably doesn't help that one such woman has been hounding me the past couple days convinced I love her because (1) I am sexually attracted to her, and (2) I am a nice guy. She reasons that I, as a nice guy, would not want to sleep with a woman if I weren't in love with her. For the record we had sex one time several years ago since when she has gotten married and divorced.

per the attitudes towards sex and women? I live in the midwest and have lived on both coasts... I have NOT run across this attitude with my female friends, nor heard it expressed by any male friends. In my circle it is not a prevelant belief - so no, I do not know perfectly well that many people believe this - I frankly don't ever hear it expressed. Perhaps this is where we go wrong in the conversation.

Know lots of times when women have sex just because they want to. But that has NOTHING to do with the iraqi prison scandal. And as I expressed before, there is no way it is conceivable to me, in that setting, that the scenario would be a "woman had sex just because she felt like it/desired it."

It is like you converged two really thoughts here. Ironically I think you pulled into this conversation a number of women who would agree with you on the sexual liberation of women front (my tag for the "women can have/want sex just because they want to") becuase it got mixed up with an argument about extremely coercive power differentials in a particular context. We were reacting to the latter - while some of your reactions were to the former.

Seriously, I would bet that others who were as appalled as I by the accusations of "victorian views" (my words) or rejection of feminine sexuality, are - like me - not living in places where that victorian view of women and sexuality is prevalent - so we skip over that point as it is a DUH... and move right into the issue of power/coersive circumstances and sex and how that relates to rape vs. consensual sex. Two different arguments.

Sorry about that situation... there are many women who confuse intimacy with "love" - doesn't have so much to do with not thinking that they can have sex just to have sex... as much as the messages we broadcast to women about "good girls" (don't have non monogomous sex) and "bad girls/sluts"... as a defense mechanism some women emotionally wrap the two together. It isn't a very healthy thing for either the woman or for those she is involved with. Good luck with it.

in your freaking dreams

I would be very, very surprised to discover this was NOT rape.

But I don't see how anyone can make the blanket statement that is "impossible" for an inmate to desire sex with his or her guard. Furthermore, I have strongly suspect some of the assumption of rape in this thread is based on the parochial view that women "don't like sex" and just "tolerate" it.

Why on earth would you even be bringing a conversation regarding what women like and don't like into a conversation wherein a woman is LOCKED UP??? Even in US prisons if a woman is having sex with a guard, the psychology of prison life plays a huge role in that...for that matter it does with men as well.

YOur murky distinctions are the cause of the shit storm being tossed at you.

you must be convinced that women don't like sex they just "tolerate" it... ;-) Otherwise you wouldn't be speaking in this tone... :crazy:

ironic complaint.

let's see... those who state that prisoners are not likely to (or unable to due to circumenstances) fully consent - or (in your scenario) pursue sex... are "reading minds"

but those who state that prisoners are seeking comfort and thus initiating sex... just "know" and are not "reading minds".

See - positions like this are ironic - because both are presuming to do the same thing - thus using it as an argument is rather weak as one is doing the same exact thing in one's own argument... hence the irony to use it as a complaint.

I am not arguing against the statement that prisoners are "not likely to" fully consent. I am arguing against the statement that prisoners are "unable to due to circumstances".

Likelihoods and possibilities allow for the possibility that the inmate "thinks" otherwise. ant and yourself do discuss with me nearer the top of this thread that what the inmate "thinks" doesn't matter (Stockholm Syndrome and all that). You can scroll up there to see my responses to those threads.

what do we know... the guards involved were documenting themselves abusing prisoners... the abuse/torture includes metting out physical violence (beatings, dog attacks, etc.)... the abuse includes taking photos and laughing during the process as a form of additional humilation.

What do we know about these photos? That they were passed around as prizes by the guards, that they were sent back and forth on the internet to the folks back at the home base in Maryland.

We know from the International Red Cross that coersive tactics began as soon as folks were picked up in broad sweeps and that 70-90% of those caught were innocent of wrong doing. We know that the tactics include threatening beatings, threatening life, threatening family members.

So now there is a photographed "sex" incident with a guard and a female prisoner. We know that he was one who was at the least involved in the picture taking (used for trophies, and intimidation) and thus can assume that he was involved in some of the other humiliation tactics that are now well documented. Given that he did have someone take pictures of the incident... how likely is it that he demonstrated some kind of "connection" and positive side to the female prisoner to which she, even having witnessed the abuse of others at his and his buddies hands... would suddenly find great sexual attraction and seek solace and comfort in his arms and body... WHILE HIS BUDDIES TOOK PICTURES.

Given the context = and the fact that this person was part of the abuse photo corps at the prison... and the fact that this pic was mixed in with the hundreds of photos of prisoner abuse/torture... your scenario not only doesn't make sense... it takes on the hue of the "never a rape victim because women are all temptresses" tone. Thus it receives the reaction you have been reading.

Tell me - under WHAT WE KNOW about the prison - the abusers, the documentation of the abuse... how this female prisoner could "seek comfort" ala sex... at the hands of one of the abusers... and that she wouldn't object to the taking pictures of the event... how does such a scenario play out... because with those givens... I CAN NOT conceive of it.

OK..let's start this over for the male who thinks with his dick:

Prisons are stressful enironments.
Stressful environments actually create duress on an intrinsic basis, i.e. the nature of the environment is stressful, thereby creating duress even with the most insignificant of tasks.

How do I know this? I have interviewed literally HUNDREDS of prison guards over the years that I have represented them in Workers Compensation cases, for illnesses exacerbated or aggravated by stress such as hypertention, heart disease and a number of other illnesses.

Duress LEADS to decisions MAde UNDER DURESS.

Duress by its very nature PRECLUDES choice since the choice is made under duress wherein one's thinking is affected by the intrinsic pressure of the situation.

I have interviewed literally HUNDREDS of prison guards over the years that I have represented them in Workers Compensation cases, for illnesses exacerbated or aggravated by stress such as hypertention, heart disease and a number of other illnesses.

If I were the complete shithead you think I am, I would try hijacking this conversation at this point by claiming you are now saying the GUARD was raped because he was under duress. But I know that's not what you mean. And I am not a complete shithead (damned close though).

I gather you mean that it is still rape even if the inmate thinks he wants to have sex with his guard because the inmate is under duress and therefore not responsible for his behaviour. While I believe that is yet another good reason why this guard's behaviour was wrong, I still do not believe it rises to the threshold of rape if, in fact, the inmate "thinks" he wants to have sex (unless it could be shown that some form of duress were applied with the "intent" of fostering such thoughts in the inmate).

have raped BECAUSE he was under duress which is why the fault and responsibility goes much higher than the MP and in the prison scenario, it lays at the warden's feet. Controls need to be in place so that it cannot occur. Such controls and policies are the responsibility of the leadership.

Nice try.

the person with the lower amount of power is under duress, implied or expressed.

There is no greater power imbalance than being imprisoned by an invading army!!!! There is no greater duress than imagining you're the next person to be executed or tortured. :wtf:

Helloooooooooooooooooooooo

edited for misspelling committed under great durress.

Guards are supposed to be GUARDING prisoners. Not "HAVING SEX" WITH THEM OR RAPING THEM.

between thomas jefferson and sally hemmings :eyes:

Furthermore, I have strongly suspect some of the assumption of rape in this thread is based on the parochial view that women "don't like sex" and just "tolerate" it.

Hey bud.

Been raped. Makes me a tad bit empathetic with the power differentials that often are involved in coerced sex.

Has nothing to do with my sexuality - nor my beliefs about sex. Though I can attest that I do not adhere to the women just "tolerate" sex belief system. Indeed I do not know a single woman for whom that would apply. From where did you pull out that assumption? Really left field, if you ask me.

a twisted mind...or someone who is very, very naive and thinks the rest of us are as well. "the patriachial *fucking* view of sex...blah, blah, blah" when the subject at hand is: a male SOLDIER and a female PRISONER. ...which about POWER and RAPE...not "sex" and "comfort".
someone seems to be so stuck in a fantasy, that s/he has forgotten all about the context in which this occurred.
:grr: let me get back to work before i get banned.

Is it possible or conceivable that a female inmate would initiate or desire sex with a male guard?

Of course. I'm sure it happens.

What is the probability that this is what happened with an Iraqi female prisoner and an American guard?

Infinitesimal to non-existant.

So why even start this argument, again?

How could anyone think that a woman seeking "comfort" (an odd choice of words given the history of "comfort women" in WWII) would want to have a picture taken while "having sex"?

my dear sangh0, our friend would say this woman is just very sex-positive, i.e., not burdened the partiarchial assumption that imprisioned women don't like being photographed while being "comforted" by their captors :puke:
fortunately, since i don't watch pornography: i don't understand this mindset :puke:

That's exactly right.

...by a member that is still here. Absolutely unbelievably disgusting.

Thanks for calling him on it, NSMA.

most pathetic thing I have ever read on this web site and that's saying something.

:eyes:

feined - because in rejecting the "seeking comfort" argument ... we must be denying the existence of... FEMINITY? What the f*ck?

I was speechless and that doesn't happen often.

first time I've been a witness to the phenomenon ;-)

On one hand that level of *ahem* cluelessness would be quite jaw dropping.

OTOH, ugggghhhh..... never mind!

Cluebus rolling in with a clue:

There can be no consent in that situation

EVER!

"There can be no consent in that situation. EVER!"

Does this only apply to sex between female inmates and male guards? Can an inmate NOT initiate sex with a guard?

The difference between our positions on this subject is that I freely admit that guards do rape inmates, I believe this to be even more likely under these circumstances (with the prisoner being an "enemy"), and I believe more guards rape inmates than have consensual sex with an inmate.

But you claim that an inmate never wants to have sex with a guard. I don't see how you can actually believe that.

There can be no consent in that situation -- EVER!

There is too much of a power imbalance.

Desire???? No fucking way.

That is why..even if they WANT it based on your loose definition of WANT..by definition..all of prison life literally OCCURS in a state of duress.

Get it?

And, again, even if an inmate "thinks" he or she wants to have sex, even if an inmate initiates the contact, I think it would be improper for a guard to respond.

But if an inmate does "think" he or she wants to have sex, I don't think that the word "rape" should be applied.

a prisoner cannot GIVE consent, no matter what s/he may think.

to Geneva definitions of torture.

not at all

Let's say an 11 year old says she really wants to have sex with somone who is in charge of her. If that person does it, is that rape? She consented, right? She even encouraged it. I guess that's just improper, not rape. She was just attracted to her source of support, right? She thinks she wants to, so there's no problem with the imbalance in the custodial relationship, right?
The fact that she depends on this person for sustinance and survival doesn't matter, since she consented, and maybe even encouraged it, right?

"Does this only apply to sex between female inmates and male guards? Can an inmate NOT initiate sex with a guard?

Does she have the freedom to not want to be raped if she demands to be left alone? If not, then only in porn movies. The difference being, the Guard--usually charged with upholding the law--takes an oath to uphold the law. If it is a felony to have sex, even consentual, with prisoners in his charge, then he has broken his oath. Prisoners are not administered an oath, therefore the burden and onus is on the authoritarian, not the subjected. That is why a clear and defining line has been drawn in this matter in U.S. courts.

The difference between our positions on this subject is that I freely admit that guards do rape inmates, I believe this to be even more likely under these circumstances (with the prisoner being an "enemy"), and I believe more guards rape inmates than have consensual sex with an inmate.

But you claim that an inmate never wants to have sex with a guard. I don't see how you can actually believe that.

Are you confusing female prisoners in American prisons with Iraqi women prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

First off, what exactly would induce a muslim woman, her whole life reared in an Islamic nation (with no western interference)--as many women prisoners in this country are brought up in a Christian nation (with no interference of Islam)--of her own free will and choice, to lay with an 'infidel'?

This is where your argument falls apart because you're looking at this through the lens of a capitalistic, consuming, western christian male, and not with any recognizable understanding of the laws of Islam and the Muslim faith. It's one sided and myopic, and you're trying to use it to excuse abhorrant behavior by 'blaming the victim's unbridled sexuality' (of which there is no evidence of it being the case) and making them out to be subhuman heathens, hiding behind "freedom for Iraqi women's sexual expression". This mindset assumes that Islamic women desire American men, and that is patently false.

You're saying that these women prisoners are all secretly waiting until the US soldiers come knocking on the door, when they will fall in love with their captors and secretly desire to be "comforted" and "have sex" with them in prison because they can't curb their sexual desire.

n/t

that the cultural stakes are exceptionally high for practising Muslim women to have sex outside of marriage - and compounded if it is outside of the religion. Honor killings do occur in the region - those are pretty high stakes. Bit bigger possible consequences than a "stigma". Thus the psyche barriers to prevent acting on urges (that I still find inconceivable in this particular circumstance - but I've said that before) are very, very high.

Your argument doesn't stand up using the artificial construct of a western capitalistic christian male perspective to square this.

If your 14 yr old daughter was abducted and held and was forced to have sex in order to keep them from coming and killing her family, would you say that she was desiring to have sex with them? Do you think that she would want them to "comfort her"? Would you say that she is on equal footing with those who are holding her a prisoner in determining her "desire" for "comfort"?

Turn off the pornography and come back to reality.

"seeking comfort" in the form of sex from abusive guards... than a guard is asserting power, control and humiliation in an environment where that is documented to be running rampant.

Comfort seeking suggests fragility

Coersion/cooperation (thus rape) suggests acquiescing out of fear - and in the described environment.

Been raped - find it almost disturbing that some are ready to look for the way to "explain it" so it doesn't have to be rape - given the exceptional violence that has been demonstrated in the current circumstances... so we accept all of that violence... but the charges for rape... whooa nellie... musta been the woman seeking comfort... :eyes:

as well as does one individual (who is NOT a woman) in this thread :eyes:

good observation

The words Taguba used in his report. So they are going to call it "sex" instead of rape because of that, how convienient.

Wait till the pics come out.

Oh, wait, they won't show them. Just like they showed the photo of the dogs about to attack a prisoner, but not the photos of him AFTER the attack. Might upset the viewers, you know. They could be sitting down to dinner or somethin'.

:nuke:

She probably was begging him for it...

Sincerely,

Rush Limbaugh

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:puke:

:D

-- Allen

Period.

Or are you suggesting that he brought her flowers and candy first???

I am getting more and more sick of the apologist language being used about the torture and abuse being meted out by US soldiers in Iraq...

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS!!!! :grr:

I should be sent a big check for the obscure SomethingAwful reference there.

As I said in the attack-dogs thread, these fascist crimes are sickening. The offenders should face justice in Iraqi streets.

Vs. having sex ?

Anybody ?

Even if the woman like the guard, I don't think she'd want a third party taking pictures, do you?

if she makes it to motherhood. she will train her sons to avenge her by joining efforts to come kill Americans. Pity the civilians we got there who per chance become prisoners... this morning a convoy got hit, many people missing. brace yourselves to view Americans in desperate situations on the internet. They most likely will not be pretty. its the eye for eye thingy.

Bush has unleashed his army onto Iraq without thinking of the ramifications in every respect. He and Rummy are now paying the price big time.

The Bush has shamed America and this will NOT go way for a LONNNNNG Timeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

We'll all have a good laugh about it later. Just blowing off steam. Much ado about nothing.